Thursday, February 14, 2008

[Health Care] Oregon House Refers Pro-Health Care Item to Ballot

From the Oregonian:

Do Oregonians have a fundamental right to effective, affordable health care?

That question threw the Oregon House into a lofty and philosophical debate for more than an hour Wednesday before it voted 31-29 along strict party lines in favor of referring it to the November ballot.


Nice.

The Republican response:

Republican opponents said the resolution would expand government, socialize medicine and create another entitlement program.


I call bullshit - not only are these the same tired catchphrases the R's always throw out, they're not even related to the measure at hand. Promoting health care as a fundamental right does not inexorably lead to any of the boogeymen listed. It's just a stupid, silly scare tactic: First, train people to respond (negatively, of course) to certain key words or phrases (socialized medicine, entitlement). Second, throw those phrases around whenever you don't get your way and watch people respond like Pavlov's dogs.

These same tricks are getting old. At the least, I would think Republicans would need to find new key words by now.

1 comments:

A doc said...

Actually, I think you are wrong. Every "right" the people have, costs the government more money to protect that right, either to promote it, or to keep it from being infringed upon. If the government said that health care is a right, they will be called upon to pay for that right, or ensure it is not infringed. I am not saying health care is not a right, but where is the line drawn? The first amendment gives the right to free speech, but I think some speech over does it. Yet, it is legal. Health care is a right, who decides what can be given? Kidney transplants to all, regardless of age? I love doing CPR on a 98 year old because the family, who hasn't seen grandma for a year, wants everything done. "Ooh, I sprained my ankle, I am entitled to an MRI even if it won't make a difference". Right or wrong, this is a huge landmine that will have serious repercussions, some good and some not so good. And it will be very expensive. I see people at work all the time who feel they are entitiled to everything, immediately, because they are sick/hurt/angry/ etc. Who pays for it? Not medicaid/OHP. WE DO. Yet, they continue to smoke, drink, have unprotected sex, gain weight, stop meds, whatever. The american population of "must have it all, and NOW" will not do well with a nationalized health care system. You think it's hard to see a doc now, or hate the 1-2 hour wait times in the ER, wait for nationalized health care. The docs/hospitals will lose money per patient, and will give up trying to make up for it in volume. You want "No Patient Left Behind"?

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.